Illus 1 12th-century tower (doors and spire added in 18th/19th centuries). 55 St Drostan’s Markinch The archaeology of a 12th-century church

Bruce Manson

Background

We have so little surviving written evidence from late by the late Dr Oliver O’Grady who carried out ground 11th- and early 12th-century Scotland that every scrap of penetrating radar within the church and a geophysical archaeological evidence must be sifted carefully. Clues survey of the surrounding church yard (O’Grady 2013). lying within existing walls are as important as remains At a later stage Moira Greig coordinated a full survey below the soil. This paper sets out the findings of recent of over 800 masons’ marks, some revealed through recording work and buildings archaeology carried out plaster removal (Greig 2015). The author acted within and around the church of St Drostan and St as overall project coordinator with the support of John the Baptist in Markinch, Fife. The paragraphs Markinch Heritage Group and church volunteer effort. below concentrate upon the 12th-century archaeo- logical findings and summarise some of the more detailed historical analysis that has proceeded in Method parallel. The work consisted of a full survey of the surviving 12th-century tower and an attempted Many of the methods used were drawn from the reconstruction of the lost nave and chancel based upon coordinated inter-disciplinary approach advocated evidence revealed beneath modern plaster and timber by Warwick Rodwell (2012). This gives as much paneling. The tower is described first, both internally weight to historical analysis and records research and externally, and then an attempt is made to visually as to archaeological techniques and measurement. reconstruct the missing nave and chancel for which only The repair work undertaken in 2014 was carried out gables remain. The church’s north and south walls and under the guidance of a conservation architect and the roof are later 17th- and 19th-century replacements revealed the original 12th-century wall surfaces inside (Illus 1) and the tower has a 19th-century spire with the lower stages of the tower. The w-facing side of 18th-century doorways inserted. the original tower arch was also uncovered behind a The origins of the study lay in the work of Fawcett, 19th-century ceiling. The operation also revealed the Oram and Luxford (2010) who pointed to the potential remains of a string course or frieze with an unknown wealth of information on pre-Reformation architecture motif deliberately chiseled off. It ran adjacent to the in Scotland that had been hidden or obscured by 18th- arch’s imposts and under the arch. Also uncovered and 19th-century reconstructions. No systematic survey at this stage was a crisp set of masons’ marks and work had previously been carried out at Markinch several socket holes cut in the wall. These are discussed Church although a Phd thesis by Mhairi-Claire Semple below. This plaster removal also uncovered a blocked compared the tower to others in Dunblane, Dunning up internal doorway that would once have led to the and Muthill (Semple 2009). tower’s spiral staircase. A substantial crack in the lintel In 2014 the opportunity arose during essential suggested that the entrance had been blocked to secure internal repairs to open up some parts of Markinch the structural stability of the tower, most probably tower that had been covered over with plaster and when the massively thick walls were breached at cement wash in the 19th and mid 20th centuries. the end of the 18th century to create the tower’s Funding was secured through the Living Lomonds w-facing door. A full photographic record was taken Landscape Partnership, the Strathmartine and Hunter at every stage and plaster samples were labelled and Trusts to remove modern plasterwork in the 12th- stored inside the tower for later inspection. century tower. Necessary permissions were obtained A three-dimensional image of the building was through carta, the Church of Scotland’s architectural gradually built up through ground penetrating radar, advisory body, and a full photographic and sample external observation of preserved stonework and close record was taken of the modern plaster in the tower examination of raggle marks on the tower where it before it was removed. In addition to the professional abutted the nave (Illus 3 and 6). These were discussed support mentioned below, Historic Environment with key experts and a drawing of the building under Scotland carried out detailed drawings of the tower construction was produced by Bob Marshall (Illus 2). and existing church in a complementary exercise Investigations during 2018/19 concentrated on (Canmore 29951). Professional expertise was provided removing paneling and plaster within the church to

Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal vol 26 2020, 54–74 56 Bruce F Manson

Illus 2 Artist’s impression of building process. (Bob Marshall)

reveal the e-facing side of the great Western arch. granularity, content and thickness of plaster samples Temporary panel removal also enabled the gable with parts of the building of known age. This, along ends of the nave and chancel to be further studied, with documentary evidence from parish records and confirming earlier calculations of the 12th-century 19th-century architectural drawings has enabled a building’s dimensions. Also revealed at this stage clearer understanding of the building’s post-12th- was the e side of the arch. For a double voussoir century historical development. The full results arch it had an unusual square cross section and what containing drawings, additional photographs and would once have been a substantial hood moulding plans have been published separately (Manson 2019) facing into the nave. These are also discussed below. along with an account of the church’s development Work has subsequently continued to uncover phases up until the late 19th century. This paper updates sections of the Romanesque stonework within the the 12th-century analysis and develops further some former nave and chancel, as both e and w gable thoughts on the tower’s main functions. walls are still intact behind modern plaster To date there is no plaster that has been positively coverings. During the process of plaster removal, a associated with the 12th century although some remains methodology has been developed linking the colour, may be found around the lintel of the internal entry St Drostan’s Markinch 57

readership. The term ‘earl’ is used to translate the Latin comes, irrespective of whether it is derived from the Gaelic mormaer of from the original Latin (but see Taylor 2016, 33–7). Scots/English personal names are used such as Duncan in place of Donnchad and Malcolm in place of Mael Coluim. A distinction is, however, made between the head of the MacDuff kin group and the earl of Fife although the two positions often coincided in the same person (Bannerman 1998). This distinction is most fully developed by Simon Taylor (Taylor Vol 5, chapters 4–5) and may be the key to understanding who built the tower as well as why it came to be known locally as ‘MacDuff’s Kirk’ (Russell 1882).

The towers of eastern Scotland: local architectural context

Although the paper deliberately assesses the building in a wider Anglo-Norman context some brief comments need to be made on the fact that eastern Scotland north of the Forth possesses no fewer than eight pre- 13th-century towers, both square and round. These are at Restenneth, Brechin, Abernethy, Muthill, Dunblane, Dunning, Markinch and St Andrews (St Rule‘s). A detailed comparison is not possible within the framework of a short paper but it is clear that the differences between them are stronger than the similarities. The two round towers draw upon very different building traditions, Irish and Norman. Dunblane and Muthill were originally both free standing and share certain architectural features but Muthill tower has been much altered with a church nave added at a later date. Like Markinch it has an external string course with a diamond or lozenge motif but it is possible that the design like the nave was added at a later date as evidenced by the fact that individual elements of the Illus 3 12th-century outline of tower, nave and chancel design are spread across adjacent stones. within 17th–19th-century extensions. Unlike Muthill, Dunning has a great western arch (although it may also be a later insert). As with Markinch, the fabric of the original nave at Dunning seems to be integrated with the tower. In fact, Dunning may well be Strathearn’s equivalent to Markinch, a to the spiral stair. It is suggested that the interior was lordly tower built with the potential for both secular white washed and painted (or stuccoed) but much more and ecclesiastical activities but later gifted to an requires to be done in this area. Burnt material was Augustinian Priory in a series of steps during the removed from the mortar between the 12th-century 12th and early 13th centuries. Architecturally, it lacks ashlar blocks where the 18th-century door was cut but Markinch’s modular balance, and the stonework does this did not reveal any results when analysed. Samples, not have the same disciplined regularity. Dunning’s including possible mudstone roofing material, and small single stone arches are supported by through miscellaneous finds are stored onsite in the tower. stones at right angles to the walls as at St Rule’s Project notes, sketches and drawings can be accessed and Dunblane. from the author. All timber seating and paneling Restenneth tower is something very different again. removed from the western upper balcony has been It is essentially an ecclesiastical building, probably stored above the vestibule and can be replaced in constructed by the monks themselves. The lower part future if required. of the tower displays some features found in Anglo- In terms of the later historical analysis, the emphasis Saxon buildings such as the deliberate contrasting of is on simplicity and readability to a cross-disciplinary different coloured stones and the use of ashlar blocks set vertically on edge, although it is clear that the tower much less overlap and less integration between the two has been rebuilt and renovated several times. Worth equivalent parts of the St Rule’s building, at least at noting, however, is the simplicity of the tower arch eaves level. (believed by most to be original), the small door above The plinths of the two buildings are very similar it and the triangular headed windows on each face but it is believed that the foundations of St Rule’s are of the tower. Two reused lintels above the se door at much deeper than those at Markinch (Fernie, E. 1986. Markinch may indicate a former door with a triangular 407). Given the subsidence observed at Markinch arch, again pointing to a possibly pre-Norman aesthetic this might indicate either that Markinch was built incorporated into an essentially Anglo-Norman style before St Rule’s (and the builders were learning from building (but note the use of this arch technique experience) or that the towers were built by two entirely over windows at Dunfermline). No masons’ marks different teams using different methods of construction. were found at Restenneth and it is likely that, as a The structure of the tower is quite different monastery, it would have used a high proportion of between the two buildings. St Rule’s is flanked relatively inexperienced monks in the building process with two supporting buttresses like many towers in compared to the highly skilled and most probably Yorkshire whereas at Markinch the structure relies imported labour that is evident at Markinch and other upon the strength of a thick reinforced lower wall eastern towers. The upper part of Restenneth tower section. The buttresses at St Rule’s are specifically appears to be later than the lower part and has some designed to support the tower and are not the residual finely cut ashlar blocks but these are not aligned in traces of a now lost western chamber (although one strictly half-bonded fashion as at Markinch and the did once exist as evinced by the inserted western cutting back of stones surrounding the small tower tower arch). The spiral stair, a fundamental feature windows indicates that the tower, at least in its later of Markinch tower, is missing from St Rule’s and there form, may have been lime-rendered. It is difficult to may have been a wooden structure at one time, before imagine external lime-rendering at Markinch given the existing stairs were installed. It was probably on the the precision of the facing ashlar. south side where two windows are located. Perhaps it Restenneth points to the difficulty of using the was thought that there was little chance of a national quality of building techniques as a guide to dating shrine being attacked and burned or perhaps it was a a structure. A well-resourced building sponsored by matter of economy in such a tall structure. an enlightened and well-travelled patron importing The similarities between the belfry openings at skilled labour from afar could be contemporaneous St Rule’s and Markinch have been observed by several with one that used local or unskilled labour with writers. They are both unusual in that there is no a limited budget. Although the lower courses of external framing arch, a pattern found in most other Restenneth are likely to be significantly older than 12th-century Scottish towers and frequently throughout Markinch, later work may not be. It underlines the the British Isles and beyond. (This includes Wharram- need to understand the historical context of a building le-Street with which St Rule’s has been compared: as well as its architecture and archaeology. there are two pillars left of a framing arch that has had The first and most obvious point of comparison its top removed by a rebuilding of the tower’s upper between the Markinch and St Rule’s is the height stage.) The key difference with Markinch is that the and shape of the tower. St Rule’s tower is about one central pillar at St Rule’s is supported by a lintel at third higher than that at Markinch and broader by a right angles to the wall and passing through its entire similar amount. However, whilst Markinch is well thickness. Again, this is an architectural device that has proportioned with string courses separating the stages, a long pedigree and may have contributed to the belief St Rule’s is designed to create the effect of height rather that the tower was built in the 11th century (compare than proportion. This visual impact is reinforced by the the belfry window of 11th-century St Margaret’s lack of string courses between the base and the belfry Church at Marton in Lincolnshire). At Markinch the windows and by the selection of massive blocks around internal courses are supported by an internal arch, the the base from the plinth up to eye level around the tower. outside and the inside facing courses being supported Even the blocks higher up the tower are significantly independently. larger than those at Markinch. St Rule’s is a showpiece The windows differ in other respects. On either construction as befits a national shrine. Due to side of the belfry window Markinch there are engaged extensive erosion or possibly deliberate destruction shafts cut from the same stone block as the surrounding of ornamentation during the Reformation it is not wall. At St Rule’s the shafts are now missing but must clear whether or not the single string course at St Rule’s have been carved independently. Their absence from all was decorated in a fashion similar to the string courses windows suggests that they may have originally been at Markinch. turned and painted wood that decayed and fell out (the An interesting contrast between the two buildings is same may even be true of the tower arch columns on a the way the towers join with the rest of the building. At larger scale). The twin single-stone window arches at Markinch the nave clasps the tower firmly with a good St Rule’s have two decorative grooves whereas those overlap and the use of thackstones built into the tower at Markinch have only one. Finally, the small capitals that were designed to protect part of the nave. There is on top of the pillars at St Rule’s are cone shaped with a slight bead, possibly to match the great tower arch, the tower where reddened stone indicates possible fire whilst those at Markinch are cushion shaped with damage. Softer stone is used inside. sloping cuts or ‘lunettes’ on all three visible sides The stone used throughout the building is mostly and no surviving bead. The windows of St Rule’s local honey-coloured sandstone with a high iron have slat marks where boards would once have been content. The hardest samples have an unusual cross- inserted to project the sound of bells in a downward cutting quartz vein and are used externally, with softer direction. Markinch has no such marks, opening up the stone being employed internally. Based upon the title possibility that the most brightly lit room in the tower deeds of known 19th-century houses with similar was used for purposes other than housing a bell. The stone this material would have been extracted from four elegant interior arches within Markinch’s belfry the Shythrum Quarry which lies about a kilometer to stage do not find a parallel at St Rule’s and seem to the south of the church. A roadway from this quarry have been designed to be seen from inside rather than was known as the Howie Gate or ‘hollow way’ with a conventional belfry window arches that are designed section close to the church where it crossed a former to be seen from outside. marsh known as the ‘Causey’ (Taylor PNF 2, 398). This There are of course many other 12th-century may indicate that it was paved to allow the passage of buildings in Scotland that were contemporaneous carts. Other sources such as the old quarry at Northhall with the tower at Markinch but the relatively rapid may also have been used. Modern geological maps importation of Norman design and technology onto show that ample supplies of lime, sand and coal were mainland Britain from the latter part of the 11th available locally close to the surface. It seems unlikely century steers us towards seeking a wider Anglo- that the combustible qualities of surface coal were Norman context. The architectural elements of the unrecognised in the 12th century perhaps in connection tower at Markinch fell into that wider tradition but, as with the tempering of iron tools. Nearby Balgonie (the we will see later, its functions may harken back to older ‘farm of the smiths’ in Gaelic) sits directly upon a Scottish traditions shared by some of these towers. complex of surface coal seams (Geological Survey of Scotland 1920). Despite the lack of written evidence until the following century, outcrops of the material The tower at Markinch were found close to the surface locally along with limestone. It is possible that the mound upon which External description the church is built was augmented by fine sand quarried from the north side of an adjacent drumlin known as The immediate impression of the tower is that it Markinch Hill. Here, there are several broad terraces displays a very high level of craftsmanship with wide enough for oxcart tracks, but excavations carried regularly spaced blocks ranging from almost cubical out in 2007–8 proved inconclusive (Manson 2018). On ashlar on the ground floor to slightly elongated stones on the south wall of the church itself there is one piece of the upper floors. The length and spacing of the stones reused fossiliferous marble within the 17th-century is also regular compared to most comparable buildings, archway but this is probably from a former burial and the reason for this is most likely explained by an plaque. A petroliferous stone with ‘crude markings’ internal graffiti mark discussed below. The strength was recorded during the 19th century but this is of the sandstone used and the skill of its assembly has probably related to a much earlier phase of worship meant that the tower is in a good state of preservation. on the site (News from the Past December 2017). A diamond or lozenge design on two separate string The tower was found to have minimal foundations courses is still discernible (Illus 4). The main external in 1929 and was underpinned by the then Ministry of damage appears to be to the north western corner of Works (Hunter, D 1984). A slight tilt of the original tower base to the south is visible at ground floor level compared to the 18th-century door which is vertical. However, measurement of the ashlar blocks shows that this tilt has been carefully compensated for by adding a few millimeters to each stone on the south side. The plinth is chamfered and best preserved on the north side where soil has been removed. There is an eroded band of stone just under the small elevated door indicating that when the door was cut the earth was piled up against the north wall. This corresponds with the conclusion that the door is a later insertion, probably cut around the same time as the internal access doorway was blocked and the west entrance was constructed. According to heritors’ minutes this was most probably in the 1780s (Brand 2017). The cross sectional plan of the tower is almost square Illus 4 Lozenge string course. with the front elevation measuring 5.03m (16' 6"). This 60 Bruce F Manson represents a standard rod and is identical in width to the early 12th-century tower at Weaverthorpe in North Yorkshire (author’s survey 2016). The south wall of the tower at ground level is obscured by the 17th/18th- century external staircase. A small 12th-century window can be seen above the inserted 18th-century west door. The window’s lower portion is truncated but it is clearly of 12th-century date. Above this window and to the right is the lowest of the stair windows, the largest of five close to the north western corner of the building. Immediately above is the first of the weathered string courses that would once have had an unusual double or possibly triple row of lozenges. This frieze continues around the western gable of the nave and must have represented a significant portion of the building’s cost. A similar frieze at Castor in modern Cambridgeshire is discussed below. At first floor level there are two long narrow windows facing w and s. These were blocked until the early part of the 20th century. The string course separating the first from the second floor is identical to the one below with a lozenge or diamond motif. Four courses up from the first floor string course it is possible to see the remains of ‘thackstones’ that straddled the tower and the nave (Illus 4 and 5) showing that they were both constructed at the same time unlike once free standing Scottish towers such as Dunblane and Muthil (Semple 2009). The second storey is lit by smaller windows and separated from the belfry stage above by a plain string course. Three putlog holes on each side were opened Illus 5 Remains of nave ‘thackstone’ projection up during the 20th century at the same time as the first on tower demonstrating that nave and tower floor windows. The putlog holes have signs of wear were structurally inked. which suggests not only the use of scaffolding during the build but possibly the regular insertion of timber beams after construction for purposes linked to defence or renovation. Other similar holes are visible at other stages of the tower. Opposing putlog holes passing right through the walls would have allowed successive stages of internal and external scaffolding to have been set in place. Their positioning is independent of the floor joists. Chamfer marks at the top of the slots indicate that there may once have been an external defensive hourding at the upper level. Fortified churches have been recorded across Europe, and recent research has identified them in a 12th-century Anglo-Norman context (Shapland 2019, 186–90). Access to any defensive balcony at Markinch would certainly have been possible through the belfry windows but no other evidence was found. At belfry level, the windows or openings (already discussed in relation to St Rule’s) are unusual in that the central shaft and the two flanking shafts are flush with the outside wall almost in the manner of a blind arcade (Illus 7). The possible significance of this is discussed below. The shafts have cushion capitals and are capped with monolithic arches – ie cut from a single stone – and the bases are slightly bulbous. It is normal in England for the belfry to be at the top of the tower although there are notable Anglo-Saxon exceptions Illus 6 12th-century nave and chancel shown within such as St Andrews church in Bolam, Northumberland. modern church. St Drostan’s Markinch 61

Illus 7 East-facing belfry window and putlog holes.

In Scotland there is often a small chamber above the belfry. In Markinch this chamber is large and has four well built windows looking out over the four points of the compass. None of the other lower chambers in the tower has a n-facing window, suggesting an observational or lookout function. There are putlog holes at cill level below both the belfry and the upper chamber windows. The e-facing holes above the existing church roof have a curious inward leaning chamfer, and struts at this point may have supported a crane device, perhaps more effective in an engineering sense than the illustrated graffiti drawing of a beam crane. This feature could, of course, relate to a later roofing campaign although the pitch of the roof trusses suggests 12th-century. The upper two courses of stonework and the spire are 19th-century additions and are inscribed on the Illus 8 Builder’s instructions on half-bonding technique western exterior. The pinnacles of 1807, visible in (top) and structural result (above). early 19th-century drawings, have been removed. It is not known what type of roof the original 12th- century building had and the pyramidal roof referred to in 19th-century descriptions may have been a later has in the past been compared with a similar door in addition, possibly installed at the same time as the first Abernethy tower but the relationship between the two replacement roof on the nave marked by a raggle line. buildings must now be reassessed on this criterion (Gelletly 1896, chapter VII). Internal description The removal of modern plaster also revealed two opposing slots about 2m from the existing (raised) At ground level we see an inserted 18th-century w door ground floor level. Based upon contemporary drawings cut through a wall fully 1.2m thick, and that operation of other contemporary structures these are currently may have caused the lintel of the internal staircase being interpreted as spindle slots for a wheel winch doorway to crack. This would have necessitated the that would have allowed large blocks to be lifted into cutting of the small elevated door facing n, giving an place further up the tower. The wheel may have been alternative external access to the stairs. It is now set moved up the tower as the work proceeded and similar about one and a half metres above ground level on opposing slots have been found at belfry level. the n side and has clearly been cut as a replacement The other feature worth remarking upon in this for the blocked internal access door. It probably also ground floor chamber is the graffiti mark inscribed dates from the 18th century and would once have been high up on the s wall along with a mason’s mark of accessed at ground level until accumulated debris a type found at all levels within the building (Illus 8). was removed in connection with the strengthening of It is one of only two double inscriptions on single the tower’s foundations during the 1930s. This means stones within the tower and has been interpreted as that ladder access is now required. When it was cut it an instruction from a senior mason (bow-tie shaped would have been at ground level as is clear from the mark) to place ashlar blocks in a regular half-bonded wear pattern of the stonework below. This small door manner, a discipline that has been followed throughout 62 Bruce F Manson the building both inside and out. The need for this interior space of the tower and this was probably instruction to be so prominently displayed indicates a deliberate feature of the original design. Some that this high quality of build was perhaps unfamiliar to timber is still embedded in the mortar and may a portion at least of the masons working on the project. warrant further investigation. There may even The senior status of the mason sketching the have been timber panelling on the walls and instruction was indicated on another stone where certainly around the windows where slots and he shared his mark with a colleague, possibly grooves have yet to be analysed. The four belfry an apprentice, but much more comparative work windows each have a containing arch and a broad needs to be undertaken into this neglected aspect of window cill. They are designed to be seen from inside building archaeology. Over 800 marks representing and it is worthwhile considering at this stage possible over 30 separate masons (or teams of masons) were alternative functions for the room given the similarity found during a detailed survey. Adding in the ground of the window configuration to domestic buildings such preparation teams, wrights, carpenters and furnace as contempor-ary castles and keeps. Architecturally, the men this would have been a major building project. interior arches allowed an internal window recess area They would be followed perhaps by woodcarvers, for each opening. imagiers and painters, all traces of whose work has All the different elements of the belfry windows can been effaced by post-Reformation iconoclasts. be found elsewhere in Anglo-Norman architecture but At first floor level the room has an opening to the the way they have been put together on Markinch tower nave or nave roof space adjacent to the tower. The by the master mason is unusual and may point to the doorway is supported by a massive stone lintel. This patron’s intention to use the tower for purposes other linking door feature is similar to many, particularly than bell ringing. The small monolithic arches above Anglo-Saxon churches in England (Taylor and Taylor, the openings are fairly common but as noted above the 2011). As yet it is not known what the function of these central shaft or pillar is flush with the external wall and doorways was. Semple (2009) suggests that they opened the other two flanking shafts. Usually the central shaft onto a balcony where relics could be displayed. An is set back from the face of the tower and designed to alternative explanation might be that they opened into support a slab of stone set at right angles to the wall living quarters perhaps in the case of Markinch to be (through-stone slab). This is the case at St Rule’s in used temporarily when the Earl and his family visited St Andrews and in many towers dating from both the the assembly mound at nearby Dalginch. The possible Anglo-Saxon and the Norman periods. Sometimes domestic function of the building is discussed later. additional decoration is supplied by encasing the twin A third explanation might be that there was some openings within encompassing external arches. This kind of high level clerestory or defensive arrangement allows a single recessed central shaft to support the wall around the nave parapet. It is unlikely that the door at mid point as at Dunblane, Muthill and Dunning. In simply led to roof storage as the most decorative side the case of Markinch, however, the decorative arches of the door arch, with a set of finely cutvoussoir have been built on the inside, reminiscent of several blocks, faces into the nave or the nave roof space and late 11th- or early 12th-century castle halls as well was designed to be seen. It is now partly blocked by as the later Norman House in York (York Museums the elevated 19th-century church ceiling. There are Trust). Recent research has shown how many early also two long narrow windows at this level facing Anglo-Saxon ‘nave towers’ served a dual domestic and s and w and a well constructed stone door frame religious function (Shapland 2019, 2020). It might also leading from the spiral stairway. be noted that Cormac’s’s Chapel at Cashel, Tipperary At second floor level three shorter windows face S, in Southern Ireland incorporates a croft like structure e and w and the stepped access to the room has been that probably served a domestic function when the need re-cut leaving narrower steps leading to the room arose (O’Keefe 1994). above. The room is entered in an easterly direction It looks, therefore, as if the tower may have been unlike the chamber below where the entrance way designed to have uses other than a bell tower, and faces S. This may be to ensure the stability of the indeed there may originally have been no large spiral staircase. This room currently houses the clock suspended bell in the tower. A small handbell may mechanism cabinet which obscures part of the interior have sufficed for what must have been a tiny local wall. In the 18th and 19th centuries the clock faces congregation regularly using such an imposing were at this level. They are now at upper chamber level building. Neither is there any evidence of a monastic driven by a vertical spindle with a cog device. There community requiring regular call to prayer. The belfry are no obvious clues as to this room’s function. chamber could therefore have served as a scriptorium or Access to the belfry chamber is awkward as even a place of entertainment for small hunting parties. the spiral stair stops a few feet from floor level The room would have had four attractive arches and necessitating a scramble with the aid of a wooden space for shutters or a window seat arrangement. A step. We can assume however that this arrangement is charter was witnessed and sealed at Markinch in the relatively recent and that a much more sophisticated presence of the Earls of Fife and Huntingdon (the timber access was originally in place. The absence then king’s brother) in 1172 shortly after the church of a stairwell enabled this room to take up the full had been gifted to St Andrews Priory (but probably St Drostan’s Markinch 63 before full rights of preferment had been handed over) (Stringer 1985, 235–6). There were probably few domestic buildings in Markinch at that time and even by 1296 only three ‘mesons’ are recorded by Edward i’s chronicler. It is likely therefore that the seals were affixed within the church itself or in the tower. The possibility that the king’s brother was on a hunting expedition with the Earl of Fife on this occasion is suggested by the fact that the reddendo offered in exchange for the feu in question was a ‘goshawk still in its first year’. Like other Scottish towers there is a chamber above the belfry room. However, at Markinch it is unusually large. Four small windows provide light for an upper chamber and may also have served as high level vantage Illus 9 suggested crane and roof truss graffiti. points. In contrast to St Rule’s in St Andrews where the upper level windows seem to serve no purpose, those at Markinch light an upper chamber which may have been accessed by a wooden stair. Such an upper chamber is unusual in 12th-century towers and it is normally the belfry chamber that is the highest lit room in any tower. This chamber most likely served as a safe for the storage of valuables either ecclesiastical or secular. The precise function of an oval niche or perhaps aumbry cut into the n wall has still to be determined. Despite considerable spalling of the sandstone, masons’ banker marks (identification for payment purposes) are visible up to a single course below the roofline. They match those further down the tower. Aside from the niche referred to above there are two significant marks to record. One appears to show a beam crane, weighted at one end and with a rope at Illus 10 Possible dedication cross in upper chamber the other (Illus 9). It stands alongside what have been west wall. interpreted as roof trusses being assembled. The other is a deeply inscribed cross on the w wall with the initials ‘AP’ (Illus 10). Neither piece of graffiti can be architectural riposte by Bishop Robert to the Markinch positively dated unlike the builder’s instruction which, building. What little evidence we have for the period from the accompanying mark, is clearly 12th-century. points to a degree of enmity between Constantine Other Scottish towers, Muthill, Dunning and MacDuff and the newly appointed Bishop Robert of St Dunblane also possess similar ‘attic space’ albeit on Andrews. They are both recorded as being present at a a smaller scale than at Markinch. At Dunblane there perambulation in Western Fife around 1128, each with is a single small square window below the later added an armed retinue (Taylor, 2012 Vol V, 109). The bishop storey whilst at Muthill there seems to be lit space and senior members of the MacDuff family probably underneath the pitched roof although this may be a saw each other as in some ways equal in status, and any later medieval addition (hes Muthill Statement of building that either carried out should be seen in this Significance). Many Anglo-Saxon towers in England light. This hold true for Constantine and probably his have had an upper storey added in the Norman period successors too. Architectural one-upmanship must have but usually the purpose is to elevate the bell tower been a driving force amongst senior members of the (as at Dunblane). St Rule’s also has this unusual upper church and the nobility in this as in any other age. window in the Scottish manner but its proximity to It is therefore possible that Robert, Bishop of St the bell openings (separated by a single stone course) Andrew’s expanded St Rule’s with a view to eclipsing means that there is insufficient space for an actual Markinch church rather than the latter being built as a upper chamber, and the small window appears to be smaller version of the former. Everything about St Rule’s cosmetic and designed with visual harmony in mind is bigger or grander than its equivalent at Markinch, rather than function. including the height of the tower and the size of the St Rule’s, of course, was built with a completely building blocks. This would point to Markinch being different purpose in mind. It was a great tower to be built shortly before the re-fashioning work on St Rule’s. seen by the pilgrim from afar marking the location This conclusion is supported by the fact that Markinch of an important national shrine. Depending upon tower is built with slender foundations and seems to the dating of Markinch church it could also be an have tilted south slightly during construction whereas 64 Bruce F Manson the builders of St Rule’s put in heavy foundations and It is believed that both the w gable of the nave and flanking buttresses, perhaps with knowledge of an the e gable of the chancel are 12th-century. A carved earlier failure. In architectural terms the differences coat of arms belonging to Prior John Hepburn of St between the two buildings are more important than Andrew’s has been set into the external chancel wall. their superficial similarities, and master masons with It sits just under a long stone on the former eaves line very different cultural backgrounds may be suspected. that may once have been a canopy or an inscription. However, much more comparative work on both towers Two distinct areas of stonework have been built above needs to be carried out before final conclusions can be the plaque but the stonework from the base up to a drawn on this important aspect of chronology. line just above the plaque is identical to 12th-century work on the tower. Indeed, here we find some of the Outline of the nave and chancel largest ashlar blocks of the church. Hepburn does not appear therefore to have either built or rebuilt the The north and the south wall of the original nave chancel gable although he may have heightened it. and chancel were destroyed in the 17th and the 19th Most likely he inserted his coat of arms as an act of centuries as the church was expanded to make room self-aggrandisement in connection with a campaign to for a growing population. The Protestant focus of be elected archbishop of St Andrew’s. He is certainly worship changed from the altar at the eastern chancel known to have embellished other older buildings with end of the building to the pulpit midway along the his arms such as St Rule’s and St Andrew’s cathedral. southern wall. All the stones, however, were re- Markinch may have been chosen because it was on used for both reconstructions, sometimes with little a known pilgrim route. There are the remains of a understanding of the different hardnesses employed ‘flattened’ arch cut through the e wall of the chancel by the original builders. This has meant that the 17th- below the plaque but this is more likely to be a post- century external stonework, designed to be covered Reformation entrance as priests’ doors were usually on with limewash, is often more eroded than that found the south side of the chancel and much narrower. The on the 12th-century tower. small apse-like projection from the chancel appears to As already noted, early survey work showed that be post-Reformation and may even have been built as the tower and the 12th-century nave were constructed a porch as late as the 18th century, perhaps on older together, linked by angled capping stones, cusps of foundations. which can still be seen between the tower and the nave gable at the point where the nave roof structure The lost nave ‘grasped’ the tower. The builders of St Rule’s did not use this method to integrate the tower with the eastern Although the outline of its foundations has been chamber and towers at Dunblane and Muthill seem to measured, the external appearance of the 12th-century have been free standing at one time. nave can only be guessed at as its n and s walls have A ground resistivity radar scan under the present- been replaced. Matching the tower, it had a diamond day church enabled the team to cross check the motif string course, and a section of this is still visible footprint of the original 12th-century nave and chancel on the nw gable. We can observe from inside the (O’Grady 2013). The scan corresponded with external modern roof space that the 12th-century roof would observations of the e and w gables confirming that the have had a steep pitch of about fifty degrees from the 12th-century nave was 7.6m (25ft) wide and the chancel horizontal and some kind of decorated finial would 6.4m (21’) wide. The exact position of the chancel arch have been attached to the apex of the roof where it was difficult to determine but the radar picked up a abutted the tower. Other than that we must infer or substantial echo that was most likely a burial under conjecture from contemporary buildings which usually the arch giving us an approximate length for chancel had tall, narrow high-set windows and often projecting and nave of 16m (52' 6") and 7.5m (24' 7") respectively. corbels at eaves level. About its original interior we Adding the e–w projecting measurement of the tower know nothing other than the fact that it had decorated at 5.25m (17' 3") gives us an overall building length of arches at both ends. 28.75m (94' 4"). Neither will we ever be able to reconstruct the An analysis of the raggle or roof marks etched on the internal appearance of the nave in terms of light and tower inside the present day loft provided the vertical colour. It did impress the chronicler of King Edward i information required to enable a partial reconstruction who visited in 1296 who referred to it as a ‘minster’ or of the external outline of the original 12th-century ‘moustier’, clearly a building that was somewhat more building (Illus 3). Subsequent phases of re-roofing impressive than a run of the mill parish church. No and extension to both n and s also became clear. The other churches on the itinerary are referred to using this original medieval roof was steeply pitched at about word. We do know from our own reconstructions of 50 degrees to the horizontal but replaced with a low the external frame that it would have been long, fairly pitched roof built upon the original walls at a later narrow and lofty, even more so if the door above the stage. There was no sign of fire damage around the w arch looked down on the nave below. It is argued roof and it may have decayed due to natural rotting elsewhere, however, that an open area below the roof or the stripping of the lead in time of war. trusses is only one possibilty, and the roof space could St Drostan’s Markinch 65

Illus 12 Photo of area exposed for inspection 2018/19. Top of western arch facing into nave.

Illus 11 Areas surveyed (exposed or beneath Illus 13 Drawing of area exposed for inspection existing fabric). 2018/19. Top of western arch facing into nave.

have been used for storage or living quarters. If that carried out and so it is not yet possible to predict how were the case then the nave ceiling would have been flat, the hood moulding intersects with any internal frieze wooden and possibly decorated. The offsetting of the or string course. upper doorway to the right of the main arch indicates From what limited excavations have already taken that there may have been a roof structure that involved place behind the w wall of the sanctuary, the archway the use of vertical kingpins and cross-beams (Illus 11). seems to be without decorated pillars of any kind. High on the balcony of the modern building, an The picture emerging is of a tall narrow arch topped e-facing section of the double voussoir arch has also by a broad semi-circular expanse created by the double been recently revealed and it has been shown to have row of voussoirs, surmounted by a substantial hood- had a broad projecting hood-moulding, now mutilated moulding. The overall impression is more akin to (Illus 12 and 13). Plaster was carefully removed above some Anglo-Saxon churches than to known Norman the present day balcony revealing the remains of the examples. The precision and discipline of the crafts- hood moulding about 20.3cm (8", or a hand span) manship is, however, undoubtedly Norman and of in width. This width is similar to the internal string a high order. course identified within the tower (also chiselled off). Carved on the keystone of the first order of the arch The double set of voussoirs are finely matched and is a broad-footed cross or croix pattée and several flush with the walls of the tower and the nave on both masons’ banker marks (Illus 14). Given its confident sides. This is very unusual as there is normally an but fairly crude application the cross is likely to have offset between the two orders of arches on one side at been applied by the master mason and would not least. Each voussoir is deep enough to connect with its have been intended to be visible once lime wash and equivalent on the other side of the arch, a span of 1.07m decoration was applied. Pieces of lime still adhere to (42"). Excavations behind the nave wall further down, the cut marks. Standard masons’ banker marks are closer to the arch springer, are planned but not yet quite visible on adjacent stones and they too would have 66 Bruce F Manson been covered. However, they are not as deeply incised as the cross. The cross type is reminiscent of the ‘bow- tie’ device accompanying the half-bonded instruction, and this may reinforce the conclusion that this was cut by a senior craftsman if not the master mason himself. In itself the ‘bow-tie’ design is relatively common but the mason applied it in line with his background cross-hatching in a way that makes it immediately recognisable throughout the building (a similarly applied mark was found by the author on a pillar in Ely Cathedral). It can be speculated that the planned effect for the complete arch was to produce a broad flat area below the hood moulding that would be lime washed and painted. For this reason particular care has been taken in removing and preserving any plaster taken from the walls, but as yet no visible traces of pigment have been found. Given the vehemence with which the hood Illus 14 Croix pattée carved on keystone of western arch. moulding has been removed in the past we might expect that any original plaster with a painted religious motif would have suffered the same fate. Investigations behind panelling further down the w wall of the sanctuary beneath the present day balcony revealed 12th-century stonework with known masons’ marks and diagonal hatching. It was also possible to identify the interior surface of the gable and nw internal corner of the former nave. With a known internal and external corner, the width of the nave’s n wall could be tentatively estimated at 0.84m (34") compared to the gable wall thickness of 1.07m (3' 6") and the tower wall thickness of 1.2m (3' 11") at ground level.

The lost chancel and chancel arch Illus 15 Section of chancel arch with star/saltire design.

Measurement of the remaining gable walls show that the chancel was only slightly narrower than the nave (6.4m or 21') and its length can only be approximated the Scottish Borders and amongst the early Norman without further investigation. As noted above, a remains of St Machar’s Cathedral in Aberdeen. detached section of decorated hood moulding was Interestingly, there is a similar curved section reused identified at thee end of the graveyard during the in the ruins of St Giles Chapel Ormistoun. It is not tower survey. It would have protruded as a kind of possible to use this feature to date the building with canopy over an arch which is now lost. It is most likely any precision but it tends to have been gradually to have come from the chancel arch towards the e end superseded in the mid to late 12th century as the of the nave. It lay face down just outside the 19th- better known chevron design gained favour (Baxter, century n wall on the Balfour grave within a couple St Peter’s, Peterchurch, Herfordshire. crsbi). of metres of where it would once have been sited. In the middle of the 19th century a carved foliate The curved section (Illus 15) was carved with a capital of a pillar was re-used by Sir Robert Rowand star or saltire motif (two rows of five star-in-square Anderson who designed the nearby Session House units) relatively common on arches in late 11th-century close to the cemetery gate (Illus 16). It was integrated Normandy (notably La Trinité in Caen, Lande de by the architect into an antiquarian design along with Goult in Orne and Sequeville-en-Bassin). The motif is an inverted pillar base and a much later memorial less commonly found on arches in England but can be coronet, probably commemorating one of the earls seen on the earlier Norman portion of Ely Cathedral, of Leven. The softer sandstone of the capital carving at Toseland south of Huntingdon and at Chepstow is now badly weathered, and old photographs are Castle (all accessed through crsbi). At Markinch the difficult to interpret but it is not incompatible with section had a quirked or beaded edging, and three other better preserved 12th-century examples of similar re-used sections with the same motif were also engaged capitals. No other detached pieces of finely located embedded in the 17th-century south wall. In carved masonry have been so far identified but it is Scotland the design can be seen at Legerwood Kirk in likely that a collection existed when Anderson was St Drostan’s Markinch 67

Scottish Medieval Parish Churches refers to Markinch church as ‘early 12th century’ (website accessed May 2020) whereas the Places of Worship in Scotland website still refers to it as dating from around 1200 (accessed May 2020). This means that more than a century separates the oldest and the most recent estimates. Can the history of the lordships of central Fife be called upon to give an indication of the likely patron? The complexity of the ownership pattern surrounding Markinch Church and its possessions is well set out by Simon Taylor (Taylor, 2012 PNF 2, 393–4). The focus of this paper is on the archaeology but a brief reference must be made to the possible patrons of the building as those have a bearing upon its building form and construction date. Broadly, there are two lines Illus 16 Old photograph of capital reset in adjacent of the MacDuff family tree to consider – the comital Session House. line represented by Constantine and his son Duncan (Donnchad) – and the line represented by Gillemichael and his son Aedh. Successive bishops of St Andrew’s designing the Session House in the mid-19th century. (notably Robert and Richard) as well the Céli De They would have been dislodged from the demolished monks of Loch Leven had ownership claims but no 12th-century n wall during the rebuilding of 1807. evidence has been uncovered that indicates any building If other pieces were retained then the most likely motivation. It would appear from all the evidence that repository would be the sealed Leslie-Melville crypt Markinch Church was built by a wealthy secular patron under the present day vestibule. The capital (engaged) during the first half of the 12th century. and a separate reused pillar base may have been part There are two key secular donations to consider. of the chancel arch. Other random detached pieces Both are set out in charters gifting the church to the of sculpture include a possible section of pillar found newly founded Priory of St Andrew’s and both date in a neighbouring garden (24 Kirk Brae). A more from the late 1160s. A detailed analysis is contained slender column segment is in situ in a garden in in Taylor (PNF 2, 393–4). In the first (St A Lib, 242– nearby Bailie’s Wynd. Other random finds were 3), the then earl of Fife, Duncan ii grandson son from the later medieval period. of Constantine, grants Markinch church with all Investigation behind the wood panelling at the its possessions to the Priory. In the second (St A e end of the church reveals that the surface stone Lib, xxi) Aedh II, grandson of Gillimichael, also has been removed at some point exposing a rough grants the church with teinds, possessions and ‘a rubble core. The original stone within the chancel toft on the east side’ to the Priory. A third charter would presumably have been cut and dressed and in the name of the Bishop of St Andrew’s (St A Lib, may have been reused as part of the early 19th-century 135–6) replicates the donation but it is possible that stairway to a former balcony. The outline of the early his rights at that time were historical harking back 19th-century steps (as shown on late 19th-century to the old church mentioned in an early document of architectural drawings) were uncovered. More work around 1050 (St A Lib, 116) and not to the building requires to be carried out at this end of the church, that must in the 1160s have been less than half a particularly as it is likely to be where the former earlier century old. church was located. Assuming that neither of the secular donors actually built and gifted the building within their own lifetime The issues of patronage and dating and that successive bishops had no interest in such a major project in Markinch, then the documents There have been a wide range of estimates regarding highlight four possible building patrons spanning the the date of construction of Markinch tower (and nave period from around 1100 up until Duncan i’s death in to which it was clearly once attached). Donaldson 1154 when Aedh ii assumed a leadership role within (1985) placed the construction of Markinch firmly in Fife during the minority of the young earl Duncan ii. the 11th century based upon comparisons with early These are: Constantine (probably the first earl also Norman and Saxo-Norman churches in England. John referred to in documents as comes or mormaer); Gifford (1988) estimates that Markinch Church was Gille Míchéil (the second earl and kinsman of built around 1200 although he places the similar tower Constantine); Donnchad (son of Constantine and of St Rule’s in the pre-1100 era. Richard Fawcett’s 2002 referred to below as Duncan i); and Aedh (or Hugh, book on Scottish Medieval Churches gave a possible son of Gillemichael. Losing the earldom under the early 12th-century date but he later referred to it as system of primogeniture, he was appointed lay abbot mid-12th-century (Fawcett 2011). The Corpus of of Abernethy.) 68 Bruce F Manson

These and other possible patrons have been assessed It has been argued that one of the physical features individually elsewhere (Manson 2019) but no clear of Markinch tower that precludes it from being ascribed new evidence has emerged that would favour one over to the first quarter of the century is the decorated string the other. Despite the fact that his earldom straddles course (Fawcett 2011). This is true in a Scottish context the first quarter of the 12th century, Constantine but casting the net more widely we find such a feature emerges as a surprisingly strong candidate, particularly on high status buildings throughout England and if he spent some of his early years in the company Normandy in the early 12th century (and even the late of Malcolm and Margaret’s younger children. Both 11th). The much more elaborately decorated tower at King Alexander and David probably relied upon Castor in modern Cambridgeshire is a case in point him militarily and, before her death in 1118, he may where a double lozenge frieze matches closely with even have had access to significant skilled manpower the friezes around Markinch tower (Illus 17). Castor resources through their sister Edith (Matilda), the wife was initially firmly dated through an inscription to of Henry i. He may have fought beside Alexander in his 1124 but it has subsequently been suggested that this Welsh campaign of 1114 and he would probably have should read as 1114. The question is whether Markinch supported David in his struggle to subdue Scotland. church was of a sufficient status in a broader Anglo- Constantine may have built the church in the 1120s Norman context to warrant such an extravagant detail when his status is recorded as Judex of Scotland, a in the first quarter of the 12th century. So although a role that would surely have commanded substantial building of Markinch’s quality would be exceptional resources, enough to finance the building of a major in a Scottish context it may be that it was built by church. The records are silent but there is the merest an exceptional individual with links to the heart of suggestion of a dispute over labour resources during Anglo-Norman England that were not available to the building of Dunfermline Abbey between 1124 and his successors. 1128. King David issued instructions to men ‘belonging’ The argument in favour of Constantine’s successor to the church at Dunfermline (pertinentibus ad Gillemichael is also strong. He probably died around eccliesiam Sancte Trinitas) to work on the project in 1136 and although he only held the earldom for three the same manner as his own men (Taylor, PNF 5, 110). years it is possible that his son Aedh continued with This may allude to whether these men were answerable the building project. It has been suggested that to the priory (as it was until 1128) or to the Earl of Gillemichael’s family was compensated with the Fife and such disputes over the allegiance of bonded lay abbecy of Abernethy when they lost the right families rumbled on for generations afterwards, as the to hand on the earldom from father to son. The genealogies kept by the Abbey demonstrate (Taylor church at Markinch may have been a part of this 2012 PNF 5, 624–9). If some of the men had specific arrangement. This would place construction into building skills then then their allegiance would be the period 1133–1140. critical to major building projects, and the King’s Earl Duncan I’s standing in Scottish society and his instructions may give a hint that work at Markinch closeness to King David i is demonstrated by the fact was underway when Dunfermline Abbey began to be that David chose him to escort his young grandson constructed. and appointed successor around the Scottish nobility

Illus 17 Comparison of decorated string courses. Markinch (left), Castor in Cambridgeshire (1114–24) (right). St Drostan’s Markinch 69 shortly before David’s death in 1153. David may have been more appropriate for a church built in the second seen Strathleven (the shire surrounding Markinch) half of the 12th century. with an impressive church at its core as a model for All this shows how important it will be to establish other parts of Scotland. What little we know about a date based upon more scientific archaeological the first Earl Duncan, however, places him closer to techniques, something which has not yet been attempted the ferry crossing between Earlsferry and North but which would seem to be feasible given what we Berwick, probably at Kilconquhar, a seat of later already know. earls. There is little in the way of surviving masonry Given the status of the MacDuffs we should perhaps from either of his foundations that can provide a be looking for architectural comparators throughout the comparison with the architecture of St Drostan’s. Anglo-Norman world rather than confining our search If the building was entirely constructed by Aedh i to Scotland. Features like decorated string courses, that then it could simply have been a personal statement that are to be found on mid to late 12th-century buildings he was in no way inferior to his kinsman Earl Duncan i. such as Leuchars and Dalmeny, should not indicate that Bannerman ( 1998) believes that he later used the title Markinch is also from that period. There is no reason of the MacDuff or Clan Chief and he certainly seems why the architectural features of a high status building to have seen himself as part of the elite of the realm. such as Markinch could not have been transplanted to If he was chosen from within the MacDuff kin group the north by a team of masons sent from the heart of for his abilities rather than his lineage then he could England or even Normandy where such features were have been a battle leader that King David relied upon more common. Early 12th-century Castor has already and rewarded accordingly. This might push the date been mentioned in terms of the lozenge string course of construction into the 1140s or even the 1150s when but several examples of chip-carved arches have already he seems to have been looking after the affairs of the been cited from Normandy from an even earlier period. young earl Duncan II, but what little we know about In terms of Markinch’s w arch there are no known the building’s architecture suggests something earlier. exact parallels, but Weaverthorpe in Yorkshire has Unless we are dealing with a very conservative building already been mentioned as a tower with the same then we would expect at least a scattering of voussoirs external dimensions, and there could be a link (Illus 18). with chevron decoration rather than four pieces of Weaverthorpe can also be securely dated to the early chip-cut ashlar with a saltire motif and a very plain set years of the 12th century thanks to a preserved of voussoirs at the western end. Evidence of decoration inscription. The Manor of Weaverthorpe, together approaching that of Leuchars or Dalmeny would have with a large amount of land in the district, was sold by

Illus 18 Great western arch at Weaverthorpe (1115–19) , with Markinch features superimposed. 70 Bruce F Manson

Archbishop Thomas ii of York to Herbert, Chamberlain rest of Scotland (and indeed the Anglo-Norman world) to Henry i, during the former’s visit to the Court at at the time the building was constructed. Winchester. The sun-dial inscription dates the church Firstly, the tower was built as part of a tradition building to the period 1115–1119. Despite the elevated of free-standing stone structures that in Scotland status of its builder, it is in some ways simpler in design had a primarily defensive and protective function. than Markinch with no decoration on the chancel As well as a show of piety, Markinch church was arch and no carving on the external string courses of most likely a manifestation of lordly power, a secure the tower. Like Markinch it has a high level internal location for secular and ecclesiastical valuables and a doorway above a tall western arch but at Weaverthorpe potential refuge in time of war. It was built at a time this is placed centrally. The belfry openings located when Norman technological advances were leading at the top of the tower, the external tower stair and the to the demolition or substantial reconstruction of absence of a room above the belfry indicates a building Anglo-Saxon churches all over England as well as that was primarily designed for religious worship the construction of fortified castles. It was, of course, rather than defence but would also have marked out also a religious building but this may not have been the status of the builder. The chancel arch is also plain uppermost in the mind of the builder. As noted above, and unadorned but, interestingly, a section of star/ Shapland (2020) has argued that many Anglo-Saxon saltire chip-cut moulding, identical to the chancel arch towers that had previously been seen as ecclesiastical design at Markinch, has been inserted into the tower bell-towers began life as miniature manorial castles and in an apparently random manner. for every stone tower that survives he believes that there So much for the form and decoration of the building were many timber towers that have long rotted away. at Markinch. These are only a fraction of the many There may even have been an earlier tower at Markinch hundreds of points of comparison that it is now possible where a circular ring ditch can be traced centred on a to make with searchable data bases such as the Corpus point that does not relate to the 12th-century building’s of Scottish Medieval Churches and the Corpus of footprint. In Scotland the pattern is complex but the Romanesque Sculpture of Britain and Ireland. From a principle of the multi-functional tower, perhaps free- detailed data base assessment and numerous site visits standing before it was attached to a nave and chancel, it is possible to conclude that Markinch St Drostan’s was the same. Such towers are to be found throughout is either a sophisticated and, in a Scottish context, Europe. Markinch with its great w tower clasped by a precocious example from the early years of the 12th narrow lofty nave is a Norman style successor to both century or it was a slightly backward looking example the free-standing Scottish tower and the Anglo-Saxon from a later period. There is no credible evidence of it tower-nave. being constructed after the 1160s and it was, in fact, the We get some insight into the building plans of many tower that we see today that was gifted to St Andrew’s early 12th-century lordly patrons from a Papal edict Priory shortly after the accession of Bishop Richard of 1123 which forbad the fortification of ecclesiastical in 1165. There would have been no incentive for the buildings – ‘By our Apostolic authority we forbid MacDuffs building at Markinch after that date and the also the fortifying of churches and their conversion to construction of St Andrew’s Cathedral and St Andrew’s profane uses.’ (The Canons of the First Lateran Council Priory were already underway absorbing resources and 1123, translated by Schroeder, 1937). This may be why manpower from the church. In any event, the building both Leuchars and Dalmeny, both built later in the of St Drostan’s was probably more significant to the century by lordly patrons, are lacking towers. Cormac’s waning Céli Dé of Loch Leven Priory than it was to the Chapel at Cashel near Tipperary in Ireland shows how Augustinians of St Andrew’s to whom it and its revenue a powerful local lord even on the edge of the ‘Anglo- were eventually gifted, probably under royal pressure. Norman world’ could combine piety with convenience As regards the building’s function, the patron (Illus 19). Dating from the mid-1130s his magnificent was very likely to be drawing upon local East of chapel is believed to have incorporated domestic quarters Scotland traditions which emphasised the security and in the upper part of the chapel (O’Keefe 1994). Given defensibility of a stone tower. This was, incidentally, the church’s secure location and the round tower nearby also an Anglo-Saxon tradition which conflated the a defensive function would not have been required domestic and the ecclesiastical functions of a building but the parallel of two powerful provincial lords in the so called ‘nave-towers’ of the 10th and 11th importing Norman design and technology should not centuries (Shapland 2019). This issue is considered be overlooked. Despite the distance between Cashel further in the next section. and Markinch it is quite possible that the same skilled workmen from the heart of Anglo-Norman England Why was St Drostan’s built? worked on both projects. A multi-functional tower? We must, in addition, ask ourselves if the religious influence on the principal patron was coming from the A careful analysis suggests that the patron, the master monks of Loch Leven or the Bishop of St Andrew’s. mason and most probably the ecclesiastical authorities Both would have had some rights at least over the collaborated on a project that was far from simple in its chancel and may have influenced the decoration if not intent. We must also examine what was going on in the the basic interior layout of the interior space. However, St Drostan’s Markinch 71

the Fife host and dispensed justice. We do not know how many times a year he visited but it would have been major social event. Such evidence as we have points to a pattern of prestigious lords in the 11th and 12th centuries moving from one host to another all around the territory that they controlled, gathering tribute and securing alliances. Senior members of the MacDuff family had the added duty of officiating at major trials at nearby Dalginch, and their church tower would have provided a secure base on such occasions if needed.

Conclusion

Firstly, the project has demonstrated that there is much historically significant information buried within the walls of churches that have been heavily restored or Illus 19 Cormac’s Chapel, Tipperary (c 1135). even rebuilt since the Reformation. More specifically, the recent archaeological work does point to Markinch Church once being an Anglo-Norman building of some the choice of the lozenge for the tower’s string course status and quality. The size and layout of the lost nave motif, from the full range of Norman carvings available, and chancel have been calculated, and the tower suggests Celtic influence (Richardson 1984, 32). The surveyed and assessed. A blocked doorway found MacDuffs had long had a special link to St Serf and under plaster confirms that the tower’s stair would the monks of Loch Leven. have been accessed internally rather than through Neither should the tower’s role as a place for the existing elevated door which is now reckoned entertaining hunting parties be ignored entirely to be 18th-century in date, and the evidence points given the its elevated view out over the surrounding to a fortifiable tower with some strength. countryside and the importance of hunting to the As regards the construction process, over 800 lordly elites. St Drostan’s was a church, it is true, masons’ banker marks have been identified and and it may even have had a bell of some description amongst the graffiti is at least one instruction on located in the belfry but it was probably originally building techniques. Socket holes made to support conceived as something more. When such a secure scaffolding and lifting mechanisms have been stone-built domestic refuge later became detached uncovered giving us insights into building techniques. from its ecclesiastical use we would come to call it The lower part of the tower wall, now pierced by a castle or keep. two modern doorways, is well over a metre thick and Nor should we forget that Markinch was on unlikely to have had any 12th-century point of entry the pilgrim trail to St Andrew’s, encouraged and other than through the arch that linked the tower to the developed by Margaret. She was, of course, the mother nave. The belfry windows have three columns set flush of Alexander and David, the two Scottish kings at the with the exterior wall and a set of finely cut interior apex of the Scottish aristocracy straddling the period window arches reminiscent of a domestic rather than when building took place. St Drostan’s is almost exactly ecclesiastical arrangement. A high level arched doorway half-way between Dunfermline and St Andrew’s and eccentrically placed above the w arch and facing into would have been a major pilgrim point of assembly. the nave may be part of intended living or storage space Whatever the role of the earls of Fife and the clan but an ecclesiastical or ceremonial function has not chiefs, successive Scottish monarchs would have had been ruled out. an interest in the building’s role as a key element of The large double voussoir tower arch has been a national pilgrim route. uncovered on the w side, partially uncovered on the e It was only by the mid-13th century when the side and found to be square sectioned with voussoirs building and its vicar were both under the full control flush with the walls on both sides. Above thevoussoir s of the Prior of St Andrew’s that the ecclesiastical on the side facing into the nave it has had a substantial function came to dominate its use. Even then its size 22cm wide hood moulding, now badly damaged. A was completely out of proportion to its surrounding carved cross on the keystone is thought to be the work population, particularly when the legal functions of the master mason rather than being part of the nave of nearby Dalginch were transferred to Cupar decoration which has been chiselled away in the post- (MacKay, 1895). Reformation period. Four sections of the chancel arch In the early 12th century Markinch would also have been identified, all with a star/saltire pattern similar have been a stopping off point on the lord’s regular to late 11th- and early 12th-century arch decoration in circuit of his landholdings, a place where he mustered Normandy and England. The curvature of the most 72 Bruce F Manson recently found section corresponds to the width of the nave, now with a secure external measurement of 7.6m (25’). An interior corner of the nave has also been identified giving wall thickness and adding to our knowledge of the vanished 12th-century structure. The e wall of the chancel is believed to be 12th-century, incorporating a 16th-century coat of arms and a post- Reformation doorway inserted into the stonework. The quality and importance of the building would accord with the standing of the MacDuff family, premier earls of Scotland, leaders of the Scottish army and traditionally responsible for crowning the monarch. It should be seen as a building set in a wider Anglo-Norman rather than a purely Scottish context. It is also, however, a building that looks back at earlier Scottish traditions, and there are signs of the tower and possibly the roof space having uses that were secular as well as ecclesiastical, protective and defensive. The historical analysis regarding construction date is as yet inconclusive but would point to the period Illus 20 Resistance interpretation. Low resistance 1115 to 1140, with the most likely patrons being anomalies (blue) and high resistance anomalies (red). Constantine or his son Duncan on the comital line or, alternatively, Gillemichael when viewed in a wider Anglo-Norman rather thn a purely Scottish context. referred to in a very early charter of around the middle The architectural decoration is not inconsistent with an of the 11th century, a donation perhaps connected to early 12th-century date. There is some limited evidence MacBeth’s pilgrimage to Rome (Watson 2010, p 201). that it was built before St Rule’s rather than vice versa The potential historical importance of Markinch but that requires more detailed comparative work. The St Drostan’s would certainly justify the use of more relationship between Markinch’s MacDuff patron and sophisticated scientific methods to analyse timber, the Bishop of St Andrews is key, with the driving force carbon and mortar samples. The building is a national as likely to be one of competition as of emulation. monument of some distinction with much more information to reveal.

Future archaeological research Acknowledgements The archaeology of a regularly used church surrounded by a graveyard is a long term process that requires input The author is supported by a team of volunteers drawn from many different specialisms as well as an active from the Archaeological Sub-Committee of Markinch community involvement. Within St Drostan’s, Heritage Group. Other funders include the Hunter permissions have been secured for further plaster Archaeological and Historical Trust, Fife Environment removal, and the ongoing archaeology will become a Trust, Fife Council and Historic Environment Scotland. permanent feature adding to the building’s attractive- Valuable contributions in kind have been received from ness for visitors including those using the Fife Pilgrim rcahms along with advice from Historic Scotland and Way. Further sections of plaster are scheduled to be carta, the Church of Scotland’s Architectural advisory removed from around the arch within the building body. The Kirk Session of Markinch and Thornton at the western end, and more work is required to date Parish Church have provided support throughout. the arched door through the w gable and to profile Moira Greig mclfa, fsa (Scot) conducted an extensive the plinth upon which the chancel stands (Illus 20). survey of masons’ marks in year 3 along with a team The geophysical and ground penetrating radar surveys of volunteers. Advice and encouragement from carried out by the late Dr Oliver O’Grady require to be Douglas Speirs, Regional Archaeologist is also much further interpreted, particularly the large anomalies appreciated, and the survey work on the tower by under the present day church and the ring ditch around Dr Mhairi-Claire Semple served as an inspiration. the hill. These may relate to a previous building either During the compilation of this report the archaeological secular, ecclesiastical or a combination of both. Particular community suffered the sad loss of Dr Oliver O’Grady research focus must be given to St Drostan’s possible whose contribution with ground penetrating radar and domestic and defensive functions in line with current geophysical surveying has been invaluable. research in England and Wales (Shapland 2020). In Particular thanks are due to members of the Church addition, it should be recalled that the present 12th- Archaeology Sub-committee particularly Neil Sutherland century building almost certainly replaced a structure and Maureen Brand. Paul Hamilton worked with St Drostan’s Markinch 73 the author on the archaeology during 2018/19 and Ken Manson, B. F. 2019 (2nd edition) MacDuff’s Kirk. The Wilkie assisted with drone photography. All contributed Construction and Reconstruction of St Drostan’s ideas that are scattered throughout the following pages. Church Markinch. The artist responsible for the reconstructed drawing of Manson, B. F. The Terraces of Markinch Hill. 2018 Markinch church is Bob Marshall. (unpublished paper. Refer to author). Finally, we are grateful for the many observations News from the Past. Markinch Heritage Group made by a wide range of people either during the newsletter (deposited in Scottish National Library). various open days held over the three year period O’Grady, Dr O. J. T. 2013 Markinch Parish Church. or in response to drafts of annual reports. These Report on Geophysical Survey. include, in no particular order, Professor John O’Keefe, T. 1994 Lismore and Cashel: Reflections Hume, Dr Gilbert Màrkus, Professor Richard on the Beginnings of Romanesque Architecture Fawcett, Professor Richard Oram, Professor in Munster. Journal of the Royal Society of David Munro, Dr Richard Gem, Professor Eric Antiquaroes of Ireland 124. Fernie, Dr Iain Anderson, Dr. Alex Woolf, Julian Oram, R. 2004. David I, the King Who Made Scotland. Luxford, Dr James King, and especially Professor Richardson, Hilary. 1984 Number and Symbolism in Barbara Crawford and Dr Simon Taylor whose Early Christian Irish Art, 32–33 The Journal of the thoroughly researched works on the MacDuffs Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Vol. 114 of Fife underpin much of my historical analysis. (1984 ), 28 – 47. The views expressed in this paper are, of course, Rodwell, W. 2012 The Archaeology of Churches. entirely the responsibility of the author. Stroud, Warwickshire. Russell, J. R. 1882 The Kingdom – A Descriptive and Historical Handbook to Fife. References St Andrews Lib. 115–16. Quoted by Taylor 2012. Schroeder, H. J. 1937 Disciplinary Decrees of Bannerman, J. 1998 MacDuff of Fife in A. Grant and the General Councils: Text, Translation and K. Stringer. Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship Commentary, (St Louis) 177–94. and Community. Edinburgh University Press. Shapland, M. G. 2019 Anglo-Saxon Towers of Baxter, R. 2019 .Corpus of Romanesque Sculpture for Lordship. and Lecture for Society of Antiquaries Britain and Ireland. Entry for St Peter’s, Peterchurch. March 2020 (Youtube). (see below for link). Stringer, K. J. Earl David of Huntingdon. Study in Brand, M. Survey of Markinch Parish Church Session Anglo-Scottish History 1985. Edinburgh 235/6. Minutes (National Records of Scotland CH/258) Taylor, A. The Shape of the State in Medieval Scotland Building Operations. 2017. 1124–1290. Oxford 2016. Corpus of Romanesque Sculpture for Britain and Ireland Taylor, H. M. and Taylor J. 2012 Anglo-Saxon (crsbi). (accessed frequently throughout the text). Architecture. Corpus of Medieval Scottish Medieval Parish Churches . Taylor, Dr. S. with Màrkus, G. 2012, The Place-names Donaldson, G. 1985 Early Scottish Church History. of Fife (Vols 1–5 – referred to in the text as PNF 1 to 5). Fawcett, R. 2011 The Architecture of the Scottish Semple, Dr M-C. Glasgow Univ. Thesis. 2009 An Medieval Church Yale University Press. Archaeology of Scotland’s Early Romanesque Fawcett, R. Scottish Medieval Churches Architecture Churches: The Towers of Alba. and Furnishings 2002. York Museums Trust www.historyofyork.org.uk Fawcett, Richard, Oram, Richard and Luxford, 2010 (accessed July 2020). Julian. Scottish Medieval Parish Churches : The Evidence from the Dioceses of Dunblane and Websites Dunkeld. The Antiquaries Journal, 90, 2010, 261–98 . Fernie, E. 1986 Early Church Architecture in Scotland https://canmore.org.uk/site/29951/markinch-st- Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 116 (1986), 407. drostans-parish-church (accessed May 2020). Gelletly A. 1896 Ancient towers and Doorways (chapter vii). https://www.crsbi.ac.uk Geological Survey of Scotland 1920 sheet 28 nw1. Gifford, J. The Buildings of Scotland – Fife 1988 Yale https://arts.st-andrews.ac.uk/corpusofscottishchurches/ University Press. site.php?id=158760 (accessed May 2020). Greig, M. 2015 St Drostan’s Church Markinch Fife. A Survey of Masons’ Marks within the Tower. https://www.crsbi.ac.uk/view-item?key=WXsiUCI Historic Environment Scotland. Muthill. Statement of 6eyJDb3VudHJ5IjoiRW5nbGFuZCIsIkRlZGljYXR Significance. pb24iOnsibm93IjoiU3QgUGV0ZXIifSwiUmVnaW9 Huneycutt, L. L. 2003 Matilda of Scotland. uIjp7Im5vdyI6IkhlcmVmb3Jkc2hpcmUifX0sIkYiO Hunter, D. 1984 Markinch Parish Church, 1400 Years iJleUowSWpwYk5s2SWpv M2ZRIn0&pg=4&WINID of Religious Worship. =1596032164728#ufDLUawJjtUAAAFzmeizQw/9934 MacKay, Æ. J. G Fife and Kinross 1895, 3. (Ron Baxter. St Peter’s Peterchurch, accessed July 2020). 74 Bruce F Manson

Abstract Keywords The paper sets out the results of historical and Anglo-Norman archaeological investigations which were undertaken architecture between 2014 and 2019 within St Drostan’s Church churches in Markinch, Fife. The tower is an exceptionally high earls quality Anglo-Norman building. A detailed analysis Fife is made of the surviving 12th-century building fabric, MacDuff most notably the tower and the arch that once linked Markinch it to the vanished nave. A reconstruction is attempted Romanesque based upon a range of indicators uncovered during Scottish small scale investigations behind the 19th-century towers plaster. It is concluded that the building was probably 12th century intended to have a range of uses in addition to the ecclesiastical, and was built by a member of the This paper was published with the aid of a grant MacDuff family some time between 1115 and 1140. from Markinch Heritage Group. The post-Reformation destruction of the nave, chancel and much of the carved decoration has made interpretation difficult but much information, particularly relating to building techniques has been extracted and several unique features identified. Suggestions as to future archaeological research are set out.